Why the Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case - Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

I'm trying to understand this one!

The story goes that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat casually and, on that basis, perjured himself and his family by saying that the man he saw was not RM.

Now, if there was also a casual relationship with Gerry, why would he suggest that's who he could have seen?

Spot on Freedom, I'll risk my whole family lying to police because I've seen RM about the town, hopefully that will get him off the hook. The part were some think Martin knew GM is not even worth commenting on.

Locking for a moment, we have gone off topic to JW now so splitting thread.

Have split the JW posts away from this thread to the topic in discussion forum.

Thread unlocked now.

Again we have TB claiming 3 people said 'he looked like a tourist'.  Of course they did, because that is the question the PJ would have asked them and they would have replied 'yes'  The PJ would have had a number of questions all the same put to the witnesses. 

Martin Smith did make 2 statements to the Irish police, (one of which was on 6th May according to P Reiss and what I read early on in the case - now whooshed) , and the other much later on re the sighting of GM. It is in the files that he made 2 statements two the police in Ireland.

Reading Smithman5 thread over the way is very interesting and most of it should have been brought forward to every Smithman thread thereafter. There are many points, you know the ones, points 1-12 (I'm sure it used to be 16) where the Smith family fabricate their evindence. Nuala certainly wasn't backwards at coming forwards - starts about page 3

Also see first comment from Verdi page one


https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions

I wonder if pennylane's tongue was firmly in cheek when she posted this.

"I do agree that it's good to go back and read the interesting debates by members past and present, on the other 9 Smithman threads. thumbup"

@Freedom, the thread has disappeared, so members only can read.  Must have become fractious.

That's a shame. It was very entertaining though maybe not for the right reasons.

It's sad, that the truth is getting buried, how can you possibly push one theory and opinion on people.  It is not even realistic.  As one of the posters said who was ridiculed for their theory, it cannot be any worse than theirs which is allegedly as follows,

Something bad happened to Madeleine and she died - not seen after Sunday.

The McCanns and their friends all acted normally, went for meals every night and played tennis etc.  For a whole week, they all acted a part worthy of an oscar!!

They roped in an enormous amount of people to lie for them, notably Mrs Fenn, Mr Smith, the nannies, Krokowsi, Murat was a patsy, the list is endless.  

How can so many people be involved and be willing to pervert the course of justice is beyond me.

So I totally disagree with it all.

His stuff is not worth reading anymore unless you`re after a laugh. One cannot take seriously anyone who is so obsessively into avoidance and argument.  The manipulation and fervour to be right at all costs is based in fear (or aspergers).

Luna wrote:@Freedom, the thread has disappeared, so members only can read.  Must have become fractious.

...and now another one appears.

Not sure where to put this, but it`s a recent interview with Pat on radio worth listening to.

Luna wrote:

Luna wrote:@Freedom, the thread has disappeared, so members only can read.  Must have become fractious.

...and now another one appears.

Smithman 10! So Pat Brown has been whooshed, what are they so worried about?

There is a tweet from someone o n twitter Isabel McFadden, and she is now coming in for crtitcism from TB, I don't know much about her.
She says she has spoke to Mr Smith's neighbour and he is still sticking with his original story.
I'm afraid can't do link in my tablet

Inca wrote:There is a tweet from someone o n twitter Isabel McFadden, and she is now coming in for crtitcism from TB, I don't know much about her.
She says she has spoke to Mr Smith's neighbour and he is still sticking with his original story.
I'm afraid can't do link in my tablet

I would take her tweet with a pinch of salt. Isn't she based in the States? She claims to have spoken to Mr Smiths neighbour in Drogheda, Ireland. How did she locate the neighbour? And if she knows the exact address of Mr Smith why not at least try to speak to him rather than to the neighbour? Mr Bennett has criticised her before and in this case I have to agree with him and it hurts to say this!!

I am still having a problem with this pyjama thing.  It never made sense to me then and it doesn't now.  Why would the McCanns take photos of these 'missing' pyjamas and hand them over to the police?   Eh?  Am I reading TB's list wrong, I am totally perplexed how this scenario works.  

Here are his (Tony Bennett's)
points and my answers in pink..




Posted by TB -



1The pyjamas pictured above were the pyjamas that Madeleine wore on holiday

Do we know this for definite?  Were they another pair they took, parents would take more than one pair, perhaps she had 2 or 3 the same, perhaps they were a stock photo taken by the cops in the apartment?.

2 They were different from Amelie's pyjamas

How do we know this?

3 Kate McCann washed Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May according to her book

So selective picking of information, some you believe - some you don't?

4 She (or someone else) then took a photo of Madeleine's pyjamas, in their apartment

Well, who was it, is this just guesswork?  Where is the proof?  It has not been proved that pic was taken in the apartment, it   it was probably one of the other pairs taken on that holiday

5 That photo was handed to Leicestershire Police by the McCanns (or someone else on their behalf) on or about 8th May

Well who?  Again no firm statement just guesswork and as stated below why would they take in a photo of pyjamas that were supposed to be on Madeleine when she disappeared........ am I reading this right?.

6 That photo was published in many print and TV media on or after 9 May.  It was understood to be a 'stock' photo or police photo of that style of pyjamas, but in fact was a photo of Madeleine's ACTUAL pyjamas

Eh?  Err how do you know they were the ACTUAL pyjamas?  Surely not from Amelie's comment... see below. Surely a bit of a giveaway to the police giving them photos of the actual pyjamas Madeleine got abducted in and letting then know they had taken photos of them.  How on earth would they explain that?

7 Around this time, Amelie was given these pyjamas to put on, and exclaimed: "Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?"

Did she really say this or was this just an embellishment of a story for the papers and media.  Again just heresay not proof.  Would a 24 month old child really say that, and even if she did if they were identical i.e. one of the other pairs then she would recognise them maybe?

8 On 5 June on Crimewatch and again on 7 June at a press conference in Holland, the McCanns held up Madeleine's actual pyjamas, but pretended they were Amelie's.

Sorry?  Held up Madeleine's actual pyjamas?  You mean the one's she was allegedly abducted in?  Would the McCanns be so daft as to do that, wave them about for all to see after witnesses had said she was wearing similar on that night, but the McCanns said 'Look here they are - we have them?  So surely not the ACTUAL pyjamas then?




I am losing the plot of late with many troubles, but for the life of me I don't understand any of this.  Am I going mad, I think I am.

I'm almost positive that the PJ's Kate and Gerry are holding up in the photo were requested from and supplied by Marks and Spencer (or wherever they'd bought the original PJ's from) as the ones Madeleine was ostensibly wearing when she disappeared were obviously no longer available. I believe I read it in info that was released at the same time the picture was taken.

So, yes, a facsimile of the pj's Madeleine was supposedly wearing at the time she disappeared.
And no, not the actual pj's she was wearing.

No, Candyfloss, don't despair.
There are so many contradictions. Like:
* Kate said on Oprah that she hoped Madelaine had her pink blanket with her to be comforted. Whereas we've seen the pink blanket on police-photos on her bed on the night she went "missing"
* DP saw, when making the mystery visit to 5A [10 seconds? 5 minutes?] saw that all THREE children were dressed in WHITE like "angels".
* The Smith family witnessed a man, resembling GM, carrying a blond girl dressed in predominantly WHITE nightwear.
* Unless the McCs were really of the "hand-down" clothing tradition [not that I'm against it, au contraire], what they showed as pyjamas was NOT what she'd been wearing that night [or the night before].

I'm pretty sure Amelie and Madeleine had the same pyjamas in different sizes. When the McCanns were in Italy, they held up the pyjamas at a press cobference, saying they were exactly the same but slightly smaller than Madeleine's. I don't think they would be so dumb as to take a photo of the pyjamas, before the disappearance it doesn't make sense.

Kate claimed at some point, that Amelie said: "Maddie's pyjamas".
ETA I'd never have the same garment in different sizes ... Life's difficult enough ;-)

Châtelaine wrote:Kate claimed at some point, that Amelie said: "Maddie's pyjamas".
ETA I'd never have the same garment in different sizes ... Life's difficult enough ;-)

Strangely enough I do though Chatelaine, I smaller than another, cos my weight goes up and down and when I like something a lot I buy two in different sizes, or as a pair of shoes that were so comfortable I brought 3 pairs at once as I know they then stop making them and you cannot find the same. Same with children I would think, if you buy something perhaps on offer, then you would buy 2 or 3 of the same, especial pyjamas for bed where no one sees the children.

I think according to TB it was John McCann who gave us the benefit of that pearl of wisdom of Maddies Jammies... did she say it who knows, but it cannot be read as gospel now can it? Just because someone said she said it doesn't mean she did..

How can Mr Bennett know they were the actual pj's?

@Inca, Martin Roberts wrote the piece about pyjamas, "A Nightwear Job" on the onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com

Much obliged for the link Luna, will read later on.